SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 1288

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA, J
R.Charles – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, O/o.District Collectorate Office, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur. – Respondent
W.P.No.35585 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s.A.Parthasarathi
For the Respondents: Mr.P.Harish

The registering authority lacks unilateral power to cancel a registered sale deed.

Headnote:The petitioner contended that a land previously assigned to his uncle was sold to non-scheduled caste individuals, violating property rights. Based on the precedent set in M.Kathirvel Vs. Inspector General of Registration, it was determined that the registering authority cannot cancel the sale deed unilaterally. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, indicating that the petitioner must explore alternative remedies available to him.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks cancellation of a sale deed. (Para 1)
2. contention regarding property assigned to scheduled caste. (Para 2)
3. court observes limitation in authority's cancellation powers. (Para 4)

ORDER

The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents 1 and 5 to consider petitioner's representation dated 22.08.2023 and to cancel the sale deed dated 14.12.2001 in Doc.No.5352/2001 in favour of 7th and 8th respondent in respect of land in survey No.344/N2B 0.38 acres depressed class lands.

2.The petitioner's contention is that the Tahsildar had assigned land under schedule caste category to one Gurupatham, who is the uncle of the petitioner and had issued patta No.R.D.OS.R.Dis.15528 dated

22.06.1976 vide survey No.344/N2B 0.38 acre. After the demise of said Gurupatham, petitioner's mother has been enjoying the said property and she had given power to sixth respondent to maintain the property. Thereafter, the sixth respondent had sold the property to non-members of scheduled caste and scheduled tribes through a sale deed registered before the 4th respondent and patta was also issued in favour of 7th and 8th respondents. The petitioner made a representation to the respondents to cancel the sale deed in favour of 7th and 8th respondents. Till date no action has been taken. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate accepting notice for respondents 1 to 5.

4. In the light of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.Kathirvel Vs. Inspector General of Registration, Department of Registration and Others [reported in 2024 (4) CTC 769], the prayer sought for cannot be granted, as it has been held by the Division Bench that the Registering Authority has no power to cancel the document unilaterally. However, this does not preclude the petitioner from working out the other remedies available to him.

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

09.01.2025 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order ep To

1.The District Collector, O/o.District Collectorate Office, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

2.The Inspector General of registration, O/o.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai.

3.The Revenue Officer, Revenue office campus, Udumalaipettai, Tiruppur District.

4.The District Registrar, O/o District Registrar Office, Registration Department, Tiruppur – 641 602. 5.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Udamalaipettai, Tiruppur – 642 126.

P .T.ASHA, J , ep

09.01.2025

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top